USC Beats UCLA In ... Smarts?

• The only people who complain about the US News rankings are the ones who didn't perform. You only have your institutions to blame (or, in the case of the UC system, the state of CA can take credit for the assist). 

• Fellow Bruins, you need to relax. You may want to sit down for this… UCLA is the same. Nothing major has happened and we are definitely not declining. Relaxed yet? Good. Statistically speaking, this has been stable and situated in the 25th spot for YEARS. UCLA’s rankings throughout the years starting with ’89 are as follows: UCLA 21 16 17 23 23 22 28 31 28 25 25 25 26 25 26 25 25 26 25 24 25 See we are fine. We haven’t changed much. Now for the reality. As an alumni, I can safely say that most of us Bruins ignore everything USC related. I know I did. But, here is the thing, USC has been positioning itself for YEARS to get to this point. They have invested so much money into their faculty, students, facilities, research, and medical centers that they have deservingly passed us. Truth is, while we been resting on our comfy 25th spot, USC has been in the possess of “Stanfordizing” their university. Here are their rankings, starting with ’96: USC 44 43 41 41 42 35 34 31 30 30 30 27 26 26 23 They show a gradual trend. Proving that their ranking has been deserved, due to their aggressive efforts to improve. We as Angelenos should applaud them and our great city with two world renowned universities. In conclusion, it is not that UCLA is declining, it is that USC is increasing. WE ARE FINE. Please relax my young Bruins! Enjoy the day and stop worrying about the sky falling down.

• The USNWR rankings are hardly comprehensive, let alone accurate. If anything, they provide a rough metric by which one can see where particular universities rate relative to peers. USC passes UCLA for the first time ever and suddenly UCLA is an inferior institution? Absolutely not. USC has certainly made strides but UCLA remains more selective and, as far as out-of-state admissions are concerned (I attended UCLA from North Carolina), UCLA is on another level. Not that admissions reflect educational quality. The more logical and reasonable explanation is USC has closed the gap between Central LA and Westwood - which is great for LA and California. What happens if UCLA surpasses USC in the next poll? Is USC any less of a school? No. Just as UCLA isn't, either, this cycle. People rely far too heavily on rankings that possess clear flaws and that systematically favor private institutions. Given the dynamic nature of these rankings, it wouldn't surprise me to in the least to see USC ranked #30 in 2012.

• First off, I totally agree with other posters on this blog --- the ARWU model for ranking universities is ridiculous. It's time we take a more holistic look at USC's performance as an institution of higher learning. 1) Undergraduate Students: You note that UCLA is known for admitting applicants with Ivy-League caliber stats --- well, so does USC. USC's robust merit-based Presidential (half-tuition) and Trustee (full-tuition) scholarships attract middle-class kids who may not necessarily have the assets to attend Ivy-League universities. As a current USC student, I know a lot of Trustee and Presidential Scholars (I myself am a Dean Scholar [<-- Quarter-Tuition]). Most of them were admitted to at least one Ivy-League or Top-10 University. For one reason or another though, they chose to come to 'SC. We have the largest number of National Merit Finalists of ANY UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD. We give financial incentive for top talent to come here - financial incentive that UCLA simply cannot match. UCLA is a state school and, as we all know, the State of California is seriously strapped for cash. USC has other, smaller, programs that give incentives for top talent to come to the Southland. For example, the Resident Honors Program (RHP), allows top talent to apply and enroll at 'SC a year early, effectively skipping their senior year of high school. The stats of the average RHP student: UW GPA: 3.9; SAT I: 2250. 2) Donor Base: 'SC was the first university ever to receive FIVE separate $100 Million+ donations in a SINGLE donation drive (This was a few years ago). Under [former President] Steve[n] Sample, USC's endowment grew exponentially and is now in the top 10 or 15 of all American Universities. This in contrast to the UC system which, again, is funded pretty much in whole by the State of California, whose balance books have not exactly "grown exponentially" over the last 20 years. The University Park Campus is filled with relatively new and sparkly buildings founded by the likes of the Annenberg Foundation and George Lucas. Oh, and, in case you didn't hear, just this week, USC secured another two $50 million gifts. 3) Need-Based Financial Aid: This is another area where USC excels. I can personally testify that 'SC's Need-Based Aid is extremely generous. Not only can a poor or middle-class student get Federal Aid, in the form of Pell Grants and Stafford Loans, but the University is very generous in helping them reasonably pay their expenses by bridging the gap with University money. I can attest that, in addition to a roughly $10,000/year merit scholarship, I also receive about $31,000/year as a "University Grant" --- essentially free money from the University. Not that I get to pocket this money of course - it pretty much all goes towards my tuition. My USC financial aid package helps me pay for every aspect of University life - tuition, books, room, board, travel, and supplies [laptop, etc.] - while paying NOTHING up front and taking out only about $5,000 a year in Federally subsidized Stafford Loans. It would be pretentious and ridiculous to assume that America's most talented young adults are entirely, or even mostly, from families that can afford to pay $55,000 a year for a top-notch University education. Meanwhile, what do I see UCLA doing? Raising tuition. I remember watching news coverage last year where thousands of students were protesting the increases, many of them saying they would have to un-enroll if the increases stood. It is a travesty that poor and middle-class students with potential are denied a university education anywhere. But the University of Southern California makes sure that THEY do not take part in facilitating this travesty. Cal Grants, Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, the American Opportunity Tax Credit --- all these things are great if you want to go to a second-rate University. But first-rate Universities have price tags that Federal and State Aid can only begin to address. It's up to these Universities to bridge the gap with their own funds if they want to continue to attract top talent. Simply put, USC is doing this while UCLA and many other universities are not. Furthermore, as a private institution, USC is in a great position to CONTINUE to do this. 4) Momentum: Just as the growth in USC's endowment has been exponential, so has her rise in the USNWR rankings been. Ranked 51st at the beginning of President Sample's tenure 20 years ago, this fine University was ranked 23rd as that tenure officially came to an end today. USC's reputation and place in the greater fabric of the Los Angeles Community have similarly risen. Any good investor will tell you to invest in an up-and-coming company before you invest in a steady/fading one. The caliber of USC's student body has risen in recent years. Why? Because of the rise in the University's ranking for starters. Also, because our endowment, and thus the generosity of our financial aid programs, have risen significantly. Better students today means better alumna tomorrow. Better and more well-placed alumna tomorrow means more exposure for and donations to the University somewhere down the line. USC's momentum is nearly self-sustaining. But that doesn't mean that the University will sit on her laurels - instead, as President C.L. Max Nikias said today - she will perspire and continue to improve - until she takes her rightful throne as the intellectual capital of the Pacific Rim.

• As a Michigan grad, I agree the ARWU is ridiculous. It's from a Communist-controlled university that has no concept of how Americans rate their universities. The Chinese simply count the number of Nobels to assign 30 percent of a score -- how superficial, as if schools' reputations never change. The Shanghai academics are no more qualified to rate American universities as we are to rate Chinese institutions. I agree that USC is pretty damn good and I would have loved to go there as an undergrad rather than suffer four years in the cold Midwest. Go Blue!

• As a Cal grad, the ARWU is a horrible measuring tool. According to them UC-Riverside is greater than Dartmouth. You cannot honestly believe that this is reputable. Fail, man. Swallow your pride and admit that LA has two great universities. Cal and Stanford had resolved our issues, time to resolve yours.

• I have never liked these rankings but this year's list is particularly bad. Berkeley at 22? Just one spot above USC? As a bruin, I've always been grated by Berkeley's hubris but I'd never dream of ranking them below Rice, Duke, or Dartmouth. That is just preposterous. The Annual Ranking of World Universities gives an entirely different view, but that list is based on research and academic achievement, not undergraduate education. On that list Cal comes in second in the WORLD, UCLA 13th, and the Trojans get (semi)honorable mention at 46th. http://www.arwu.org/

TotalComments: 7